The state has no right to threaten financial institutions that do business with the NRA.

Imagine the following scenario. Imagine the media response.

By October, the governor of Texas was fed up. A well-funded ten-month campaign by Everytown for Gun Safety designed to stigmatize gun ownership was causing support for gun rights to measurably decline. Called “You afraid?” the campaign mocked men and women who carried weapons to grocery stores or restaurants. An associated “courage” campaign asked mothers to hand back their carry licenses, and while most didn’t, the dozens who did received international media attention.

Then, two weeks before Halloween, a gunman opened fire in a Houston Walmart, and no one responded for nine agonizing minutes until police arrived. This was Texas. The store wasn’t a gun-free zone — yet not a single armed citizen was available to intervene.

The governor was furious. In public comments, he blasted Everytown, declaring — in no uncertain terms — that “gun-controllers have no place in Texas. Because that’s not who we are.” But words mean nothing without action, and the state of Texas acted. The governor directed state regulators to “urge insurers and bankers statewide to determine whether any relationship they may have with Everytown or similar organizations sends the wrong message to their clients and their communities who often look to them for guidance and support.”

Regulators responded, issuing “guidance letters” directed at the chief executive officers, or equivalents, of all Texas licensed financial institutions and all insurers doing business in Texas. The letters urged recipients to sever ties with Everytown and other “gun controller organizations.” The letters went well beyond a mere political exhortation and invoked the private corporations’ “risk management” obligations and their obligations to consider “reputational risks.”

State regulators began investigating Everytown’s business transactions in the state and coerced key vendors into consent decrees that not only punished allegedly unlawful activity but banned those vendors from engaging in entirely lawful business relationships with the gun-control organization. As state regulators moved, other commercial entities backed away — ending longstanding business relationships with Everytown.

Let me ask a simple question. If Texas acted like this — if it used state financial regulators to issue warning letters to institutions doing business with an organization unquestionably engaged in constitutionally protected advocacy — do you think for one moment that America’s mainstream media would remain silent, or speak up mainly to chuckle at Everytown’s financial predicament? Do you think for one moment that America’s leading progressives wouldn’t sense an immediate threat to free speech?

Yet the scenario above is playing out today, in a different state, with a different target. New York’s Andrew Cuomo is engaging in a deliberate campaign to use state power to drive the NRA out of business. It’s using a combination of consent decrees and warning letters directed at financial institutions to coerce them into cutting of business relationships with the NRA.

Cuomo’s intentions aren’t hidden. He’s on a crusade. “If I could have put the NRA out of business, I would have done it 20 years ago,” he said earlier this week. He followed up with this pithy statement: “I’m tired of hearing the politicians say, we’ll remember them in our thoughts and prayers. If the NRA goes away, I’ll remember the NRA in my thoughts and prayers.”

Clever. But when statements like this are accompanied by state action, there’s another word that applies — unconstitutional.

The instant that malice translates into state action aimed at speech is the instant the Constitution holds you to account.

New York’s lawyers argue that the state’s letters represent nothing more than government speech. The NRA and the state are engaged in nothing more than a frank exchange of ideas. But while the government does have broad power to engage in its own advocacy, that power has its limits. As the Second Circuit has recognized, there is a difference between “permissible expressions of personal opinion and implied threats to employ coercive State power to stifle protected speech.” When “comments of a government official can reasonably be interpreted as intimating that some form of punishment or adverse regulatory action will follow the failure to accede to the official’s request,” a First Amendment claim exists.

It simply strains credulity to argue that a financial regulator’s letter to the financial institutions it closely regulates urging those institutions to consider “risk management” when dealing with the NRA is nothing more than robust debate. Indeed, the letter at issue is explicitly phrased as offering regulatory “guidance.” The NRA also claims this “guidance” — combined with other state actions — is making corporations fear reprisals if they continue to do business with the NRA. Here’s a key claim in the NRA complaint:

On or about February 25, 2018, the Chairman of Lockton Companies, placed a distraught telephone call to the NRA. Lockton had been a close business partner of the NRA for nearly twenty years; its commitment to the parties’ business relationship had not wavered in connection with the Parkland tragedy, nor the prior Sandy Hook tragedy, nor any previous wave of public controversy relating to gun control. Nonetheless, although he expressed that Lockton privately wished to continue doing business with the NRA, the chairman confided that Lockton would need to “drop” the NRA — entirely — for fear of “losing [our] license” to do business in New York.

New York has filed a motion to dismiss the NRA’s claims, but it is imperative that New York’s actions be subject to full and fair discovery. The extent of public animus directed at the NRA, the specific “guidance” and consent decrees, and the allegations of “backroom” pressures at the very least deserve the scrutiny of civil litigation and at the very least should raise the alarm of civil libertarians — regardless of their positions on gun control.

As I’ve written many times before, the battle over gun rights has devolved into a bitter, unyielding culture war, and in a culture war, civil liberties are often the first casualty. State officials have their own free-speech rights, yes, but those free-speech rights do not include the right to use express or implied threats to wield state power against disfavored viewpoints.

Heckle all you want, Governor Cuomo. Display your malice. But the instant that malice translates into state action aimed at speech is the instant the Constitution holds you to account.

I agree that governments have no right to use their power to coerce companies to censor political speech. And some of the New York state government's actions appear (presuming the reporting is at all accurate) to cross that line.

However, as previously noted, the NRA's version of events is correct has yet to be proven in court. Again, I think that we should hesitate before taking the NRA's version at face value (as you appear to be doing), given their history of far-Right conspiracy theorism and how perfectly a narrative of "liberals violating the constitution to take away your guns" fits their agenda and past propaganda. I also, once again, think that it is worth noting that the NRA's actions extend well beyond advocacy for gun rights, that this all began because they broke the law, and that they appear to be asking the courts to basically prohibit any regulation of their business practices whatsoever.

This is not a clear-cut case of the NRA being the victims of censorship, even if some of the New York state government's actions cross the line.

"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

I think that proves what the NRA is claiming. And I repeat what I said in the post you quoted. I find this worrying, if true.

If you had evidence you wouldn't have to couch things in 'if it's true' so do you have proof?

No I don't have proof that what the NRA is claiming is true and I have never intended to claim that I knew the NRA was speaking the truth. If you have heard me saying that the NRA's claims are true in this thread I retract it. My postings in this thread have been based on the following interpretation of the thread:

I saw the original post as reporting that the NRA had filed suit against New York State alleging that New York was attempting to destroy it by pressuring financial service businesses not to do business with the NRA in violation of the Rule of Law, Equality Under the Law and Freedom of Speech and responding to this by saying (not an exact quote) "I don't know if this is true but I hope it is because I want to see the NRA destroyed." I have responded to that by arguing that, "if the NRA's claims are true this is a large problem because we don't want the government acting in violation of the the Rule of Law, Equality Under the Law and Freedom of Speech."

Thus I see the argument as being about the principle of whether or not repugnant groups are protected from government persecution by the Constitution and Rule of Law or not. The truth of the NRA's claims is not relevant to this argument.

As regards the rest of your post. When you say "no business is forced to serve an organization they don't want to serve" you are flat out wrong regarding US law. Anti-discrimination laws routinely require businesses to serve people and organizations they don't want to serve. As do the common carrier laws that regulate railroads, buses, airlines, cruise ships and ISPs (until Trump reversed Obama's decision to include them).

This isn't covered by any of that and even under the current laws you can refuse service on the grounds that providing that service is detrimental to their business, though in some cases that would need to go through the courts.

You started out by saying that "no business is forced to serve an organization they don't want to serve." I responded by citing examples where that happens. You answer "this isn't covered by any of that." Since I implicitly acknowledged that in my next line and you appear to have conceded that the examples I cited are valid refutations of your initial point. I accept your concession and believe we are in agreement.

That error is not actually relevant though since the claim is that the government is pressuring these business not to serve the NRA. If that is true it is a profound violation of the rule of law and equality under the law and innocent until proven guilty. How can you not find it worrying?

I don't find it worrying because the NRA was breaking the law with the service they wished to provide and got smacked down for it. Do the crime, face the backlash.

There are two separate issues here. The first issue is the NRA's Carry Guard program where New York State prosecuted the NRA and the insurance companies that worked with it to offer this program in accord with established law and issued punishments for illegal conduct. As for as I can tell the NRA is not disputed that this prosecution was conducted in accord with the law and I have never objected to the NRA being prosecuted for illegal activity.

The second issue is New York State acting outside the established legal procedures for prosecuting criminal activity and using its regulatory authority to pressure business not to do business with the NRA. This is not backlash as a result of a crime this is straight up illegal conduct by the state government of New York, quite possibly for the purpose of suppressing its political opponents. I know that hasn't been proven, but if it is true, are you OK with it?

I agree that governments have no right to use their power to coerce companies to censor political speech. And some of the New York state government's actions appear (presuming the reporting is at all accurate) to cross that line.

However, as previously noted, the NRA's version of events is correct has yet to be proven in court. Again, I think that we should hesitate before taking the NRA's version at face value (as you appear to be doing), given their history of far-Right conspiracy theorism and how perfectly a narrative of "liberals violating the constitution to take away your guns" fits their agenda and past propaganda. I also, once again, think that it is worth noting that the NRA's actions extend well beyond advocacy for gun rights, that this all began because they broke the law, and that they appear to be asking the courts to basically prohibit any regulation of their business practices whatsoever.

This is not a clear-cut case of the NRA being the victims of censorship, even if some of the New York state government's actions cross the line.

Hardline U.S. 'gundamentalists' pressure NRA from within
Daniel Trotta

(Reuters) - About 100 protesters, many wearing T-shirts emblazoned with “NRA = Not Real Activists,” marched through the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting in Dallas in May to slam the powerful gun lobby as too conciliatory on gun rights and rally for their candidate for the board.

Adam Kraut, a gun rights lawyer, fell about 4,000 votes short of the 71,000 needed for election, but earned 5,000 more than the previous year, a sign of the growth of the Second Amendment purists within the NRA known to many as “gundamentalists.”

With opinion polls showing U.S. public support for more gun control growing in the wake of mass shootings in recent years, the NRA is facing internal pressure from this little-known force that is demanding that the leadership concede zero ground to gun-control advocates.

Its rise has rattled the NRA leadership and threatens the association’s ability to hold on to moderate supporters and to make compromises that might help fend off tougher gun control measures, according to some of the two dozen gun-rights activists, policy experts and gun-control advocates interviewed for this story.

“Generally, they have a disproportionately huge amount of power in the gun-rights movement,” said Richard Feldman, a former NRA lobbyist.

The NRA has faced divisions before. An internal revolt at the 1977 meeting in Cincinnati turned the polite, sport-shooting organization into a bare-knuckled political lobby that today claims five million members and is closely aligned with the Republican Party, funding pro-gun politicians. The NRA, which spent $30 million to support Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, is often viewed by gun-control advocates as implacably opposed to tighter gun laws.

The NRA leadership has put up obstacles to Kraut’s election, both with bylaws that make it harder for candidates not put forward by the nominating committee to get elected to the board, and by enlisting a senior member to campaign against him.

Marion Hammer, a past president of the NRA and one of the group’s most successful lobbyists, denounced unsanctioned candidates in a column on the website Ammoland just as Kraut appeared on the 2018 ballot. Though Hammer did not name Kraut, he was one of only two non-approved candidates to run.

“Once again the NRA is being threatened by the enemy within,” Hammer wrote. “It is time to wake up and stop it before it begins.”

Neither the NRA nor Hammer responded to requests to address the influence of the gundamentalists and the criticism that these activists and other gun-rights groups directed at the lobby.

SOCIAL MEDIA PRESSURE

The Dallas protesters, almost all white men, included bearded outdoorsmen and buttoned-down libertarians. Some said they hid their T-shirts while entering the conventional hall for fear that NRA security would ban them.

Kraut, 31, who says he grew up in a house without guns but as an adult taught his father how to shoot, practices firearms law in suburban Philadelphia and also hosts a video blog called The Legal Brief on The Gun Collective, a YouTube channel.

He has campaigned for the NRA to push for even more expansive gun-rights laws. He wants to change NRA bylaws, such as imposing term limits for board members and mandatory meeting attendance, to renew its leadership.

“Some members feel it (the NRA) doesn’t go far enough to defend what we believe to be the core of the Second Amendment,” Kraut told Reuters.

One of Kraut’s most prominent supporters, Tim Harmsen, who led the pro-Kraut march through the convention center, has 770,000 subscribers to the Military Arms Channel on YouTube, where he criticizes the NRA for being weak on gun laws.

“We’re going to continue to apply pressure (on the NRA) every way that we can through social media and we’ll be there again next year,” Harmsen said.

These hardliners deeply cherish their right under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment to keep and bear arms. They oppose any form of gun control, saying criminals will find ways around gun laws, which only strip lawful gun owners of the right to self-defense and protection against state tyranny.

The gun-rights purists are outraged by any concessions the NRA makes in the wake of mass shootings, even if they are made to avoid stricter gun control laws. Opinion polls such as a regular Gallup survey show growing support for gun control in recent years. Within that trend, support for gun control typically spikes immediately after mass shootings, then falls closer to pre-massacre levels within a few months.

After a shooter killed 58 people at a country music concert in Las Vegas last year, the NRA supported federal regulation of bump stocks, accessories that the gunman used to fire his semiautomatic rifles more quickly. The Justice Department then ordered an effective ban that is close to being finalized.

Amid nationwide protests that followed a Florida high school shooting that killed 17 people in February, the NRA endorsed strengthening background checks for gun purchasers and emergency protection orders that allow law-enforcement officials to temporarily take guns away from people deemed dangerous.

“For us, some of the things that come out of NRA headquarters are just outrageous and abhorrent,” said Jeff Knox, a Kraut supporter whose father, Neal Knox, led the “Revolt at Cincinnati” in 1977. “It’s: Holy cow, what are these guys thinking?”

"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

Proof that no matter how hard-line you are, there's always someone crazier.

"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

There's a good low level insurgency brewing in the gun rights movement; because well.....Millennials, both early (1981-x) and late (1991-x) are changing things up as they become politically active; while the "old guard" of Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox continue to fuck things up.

"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

The NRA's post Vegas stance on Bumpstocks pissed off a lot of people, because the NRA unintentionally opened a backdoor to banning semiautomatic weapons of all types (handguns/rifles/shotguns), in their haste to try and shut off "simulated machine guns" (NOTE: NRA has never liked machine guns, going back to 1934).

In September 2004 the ATF decided that a 14 inch long shoestring was considered a machine gun

A more modern AK pattern with paracord and a carabiner doing this trick: IMG

Then there's the famous Sicario 2 scene of a Beretta 92 being bump fired with del Toro's finger.

If you had a 92 and lots of time to practice, you could pull that off.

"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944